CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
K.M.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: K.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from K.M. (the “Applicant”) on November 8, 2012 regarding a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1(4) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Board received the Society’s summary reply to the application on December 3, 2012.
2Over the following months, the parties attempted to settle the issues with the assistance of the Board through the Settlement Facilitation program. This process was not successful and explains in part the unusual delay in finalizing this matter. Further delays in completing this matter were caused by the Applicant’s limited availability.
3The Applicant complains that the Society failed to proceed with her complaint regarding inaccuracies in her file contrary to 68.1(4)(1) of the Act, that the Society failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a) of the Act by not hearing her service concerns contrary to 68.1(4)(4) of the Act and, that the Society has failed to provide her with reasons for a decision that affects her interest contrary to 68.1(4)(5) of the Act.
4In this case, an oral hearing was not required for the Board to make a decision on the application. The Board made a determination based on its review of the application and the Society’s summary reply, as well as the answers to the questions posed to both parties.
5The Board finds that the Society failed to hear the Applicant and to provide her with reasons for a decision that affects her interests. The Board also finds that the Society failed to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation.
BACKGROUND
6The Applicant is the biological mother of two children: K.M.K. and K.N.K. The Society was involved with the family since 2009 with regards to child protection issues.
7On October 22, 2012, the Applicant wrote a letter addressed to the Society to the attention of [ ] Child Protection Supervisor] with the Society. The Applicant identifies herself as “the Complainant” at the top of the letter and provided contact information.
8The letter contains complaints about 2 inaccurate statements made to a community collateral, [Doctor], during a meeting held on September 13, 2012 with the Applicant, her worker [the worker] and the Supervisor. The Applicant states in the letter that when she asked the supervisor where the information came from, she was told by her that it was “in the file”.
9The letter also contained questions directed to the supervisor asking the names of the workers who recorded the inaccurate information in the file and the dates when it was recorded.
10Finally, the Applicant also requested explanations about part of the investigation into her child’s sexual abuse termed as the “tea party” and the reason why this investigative method was used when it was going to impact the credibility of the interview.
11On October 24, 2012, the Applicant received a one paragraph letter in response to her complaint letter. The response signed by the supervisor stated that she acknowledged receipt of the Applicant’s letter regarding her concerns and objections regarding some file information. She added that the Society acknowledged the Applicant’s objections and “as such will note these in writing in your family file. Additionally, the original copy of your correspondence dated October 22, 2012 will be placed in your family file”. The letter does not respond to the other two issues raised by the Applicant.
12On November 8, 2012, the Applicant filed her application with the Board. The Society filed its summary reply on December 3, 2012. In its one paragraph statement, the Society took the position that the matter should not proceed as there had not been an ICRP, however, the Society repeated its prior offer to place the Applicant’s “version” of events on her file. In that letter, the Society also agreed to participate in the Board’s settlement facilitation program. The Society provided no evidence that it commenced the ICRP process to deal with the Applicant’s complaint or that the complaint was resolved by the Director.
13The parties attempted to settle the issues a number of times over the next 8 months but were not successful in reaching an agreement.
14The following issues were identified to be addressed by the Board:
A. Whether the Society had complied with the ICRP process in accordance with the regulations.
B. Whether the Society heard the Applicant with regards to: her request for file disclosure including the names of the workers who recorded the information she alleges is inaccurate in her file, the dates this information was recorded, her concerns about the use of the “tea party” method during the investigation of her child’s sexual abuse, and whether the Society gave the Applicant reasons for the decision not to disclose her file to her.
ANALYSIS
A. Did the Society comply with the ICRP process in accordance with the regulations.
15In order for the Board to review a complaint regarding inaccuracies in the Applicant’s file, the Applicant must have had her complaint reviewed by the Society’s internal complaints process first. Upon completion of that process, the Board can review both the internal process and the Society’s decision following the process. The relevant statutory provisions are set out below:
68(5) If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:
An alleged inaccuracy in the society’s files or records regarding the complainant.
A matter described in subsection 68.1(4).
68.1(4) The following matters may